I just realized Andy has given Federer 3 Slams since 2008 and that's 3 out of 5 Slams Federer has won since then. Nole none because they have yet to play in a GS final and Nadal none as well. He's won all his GS meetings vs Federer since 2008. The other two culprits are Roddick and Soderling.

What utter bull s**t.You profess your support for a great player - Murray, by insulting his professionalism and integrity. It is hard enough to get to a GS final without being patronised by "fans" who accuse him of throwing away / gifting matches. On this argument, Federer has gifted away plenty of wins too. What a pathetic mindset.

All commentators, Murray supporters almost to a man, have acknowledged that when Federer plays like he did, no one could have beaten him. That he was too good.

Mind you, in the end, the bitter whingeing of some will do nothing to tarnish the brilliance of one of the greatest players of the game.

Murray was graceful in defeat. And in his post match interview, he showed what this loss meant to him. I hope his real fans will do him the honour of acknowledging that he fought hard in this match, and did not gift it away.

Well, obviously I don't worship Federer in the same way you do so I can keep things in perspective as far as Federer is concerned. I am also not a fan of Nadal so you can't really tell that I am blinded by hatred. While Federer is a great player, he's also the luckiest player of all time. If you look into those 5 Slams of his since 2008, you would see why he had won those Slams beating Murray, Soderling and Roddick but never Nadal. Had Soderling not taken Nadal out of 2009 RG, Federer would have never won RG and Wimbledon that year. Soderling was a novice at that year's RG final but did the unthinkable and took out Nadal, something your Maestro couldn't do for years. Do you want to deny his luck? And as to Roddick, well, the match was probably decided on a couple of points in the end. Sure Federer won but for many of us who don't particular worship Federer, there was no winner, but still, Roddick was never Federerís true nemesis. As to Murray, well, out of his 3 finals against Federer, he took out Nadal, the man Federer fear the most TWICE and made the finals way too easy for him. But still, if Andy wasn't so mentally crippled by the pressure, I am not sure how this would have gone. So yes, I see Federer as the luckiest player of all time because the man he was truly supposed to beat (Nadal), he could never beat. Instead he went to beat the likes of Murray, Roddick and Soderling in the finals since 2008 to win 5 more Slams. You can't beat that argument. If he wants to be a man, then ask him to beat Nadal in a final like Sampras did almost each time until the very end of his career.

if at all this wimbledon proved anything, it's simply these two things:

1. to all those excuse makers bulls**tting the prime, non prime garbage, this win is like a backfire at their absolutely pathetic excuse making and discrediting nadal and djokovic pointing at federer's age everytime he crapped his pants and lost to nadal and djokovic in the recent times.......

we have heard enough of that 30 years song for so long now........30 means jacks**t when you train yourself like a teen and still move like a 25 year old........so you guys stop blowing that trumpet.......

2. federer's career has been a perfect reflection of his latest slam win.........he never had a rival until 5 years ago and when he had one finally, he started losing and winning whatever that rival has allowed him to take.........

i will still give a big credit to him for manning up and beating djokovic, murray because he took what was there to be taken, but it's ridiculous to blow this GOAT nonsense based on a bunch of weak era slams and nadal-leftover-slams........

Sorry, you may be a little tired and emotional, but i need to correct you about a few things. Age IS an issue for tennis players just like it is for any other sportsman, to suggest it isnít is simple ignorantIt isnít merely that movement suddenly becomes sluggish or that mobility is compromised to the point of making playing at a high level unsustainable. Rather that some small injuries tend to endure or that large new ones can emerge impinge or end an athletes career. There is some slowing down, though this is negligable-at least until a player reaches his 30's.But even more significantly psychology plays a huge part in the later careers of players-especially those sports where nerve is involved-like tennis. Every retired tennis player iíve ever heard who commented on the subject reports that nerves increase with age, not the converse. Even Nadal recently commented on how nervous he was going into the French open final. Most grandslame winners win their first slam before the age of 25, those who donít are in a minority, and the optimum age for winning slams in men is between 20-26.Of course players win slams older than this, but if you check out the stats over the last 20 years, once you hit 30 that likelihood diminishes drastically in statistical terms.

The concept of the GOAT will inexorably be determined by simply counting up the number of slams a player has won. There are no other satisfactory criteria which could possibly establish such an idea, which is why Federer is considered the greatest. Some may doubt this, but overwhelmingly amongst players, commentators, and fans of the game his is the best and for one good reason-heís won more slams than any other guy.The logical upshot of not using a slam count as decisive is that i can put forward any player i think of regardless of the number of slams heís won and claim heís the GOAT by virtue of any criteria i care to think of-weeks at no1, head to heads, overall ATP titles, the era he played in, the surfaces he won on ect.History almost unanimously judges slams as the criteria by which we judge the greatest, and all your post Wimbledon sobbing and angst will not change that one jot.

things which he din't have in 2004,

1. experience of being in all kinds of situations 2. strong backhand3. strong serve4. experience of fighting someone like nadal 5. confidence and freedom of nothing else to prove

all those things he has today.......look it's absolute bulls**t to say that he is 30 and that's why he is supposed to be weak........it doesn't work like that........a player transforms over a period of time, he loses some and gains some over a period of time........he never has everything at one point and nothing at a later point.......

you are just being utterly biased and selective when you just focus on that slight drop in movement leaving aside all those things mentioned above........

nadal started winning slams at 19 and no nadal fan ever fixed a time frame till 2008 and called post 2008 his non-prime period.......it's a business of cowards who can't deal with real rivals........

nadal played invincible tennis in 2008, a level which could not be touched on any surface and he rolled over federer, djokovic, murray on all kinds of surfaces like a bulldozer and finally stopped himself in us open 2008 having won 3 hardcourt titles in 3 straight weeks before the slam........

no nadal fan framed that little 2008 period as his peak and called other years as prime or non prime garbage even thought it is quite clear that he never touched that level before or after that year........

Logged

Marian Vajda to Novak Djokovic, "I saw you beat that man like I never saw no man get beat before, and the man KEPT COMING AFTER YOU! Now we don't need no man like that in our lives."

This is such bull....As somebody else already said : Get over it !The roof : For the past few years, everybody has been screaming for a roof at the USO..Can't imagine what would happen, if they actually put a roof on AA, and Fed would have the audacity to win the title...Of course it would be OK for Rafa, Novak, or Andy to win under a roof.At the AO, they have been playing under the roof for years, and this stupid argument never came up...

As to Nadal not being there : Tough sh.. ! It was up to him to make it to the final, and he didn't...Again, it is blamed on the roof... To that, I can only say, that if Rafa truly was the gifted tennis player some people make him to be, with the mental strength he supposedly has, he should have beaten a player ranked 100... indoors or outdoors . He didn't....

Sweetheart draws : On paper, Fed's draw really looked easy..But then again, Benneteau, and Malisse made him work hard, especially Benneteau, and in the semis, he had to deal with Novak, who supposedly was a shoo-in to defend the title..In the end, both Roger and Andy had pretty similiar stats befor the final, both lost 4 sets, but Roger had a tough 5 set match with Benneteau, whereas Andy advanced in straights, or in 4 set matches.And neither one was hampered by rain delays, having to play on succesive days..Andy had a few hours less rest because he played and won his semifinal after Roger's, but that surely wasn't a factor.

In the championship match, after Fed got the break back in the first set, I fully expected him to go into "Terminator" mode, win the set in a tie break, and the run away with the match, as he did before with Murray. As we know, that did not happen..In the end, he had to fight hard, and come up with some of his best tennis, to win this match.Kudos to Murray for really making it a contest this time, had he managed to win the 2nd set, I think he would have gone on to win the match.

if at all this wimbledon proved anything, it's simply these two things:

1. to all those excuse makers bulls**tting the prime, non prime garbage, this win is like a backfire at their absolutely pathetic excuse making and discrediting nadal and djokovic pointing at federer's age everytime he crapped his pants and lost to nadal and djokovic in the recent times.......

we have heard enough of that 30 years song for so long now........30 means jacks**t when you train yourself like a teen and still move like a 25 year old........so you guys stop blowing that trumpet.......

2. federer's career has been a perfect reflection of his latest slam win.........he never had a rival until 5 years ago and when he had one finally, he started losing and winning whatever that rival has allowed him to take.........

i will still give a big credit to him for manning up and beating djokovic, murray because he took what was there to be taken, but it's ridiculous to blow this GOAT nonsense based on a bunch of weak era slams and nadal-leftover-slams........

Sorry, you may be a little tired and emotional, but i need to correct you about a few things. Age IS an issue for tennis players just like it is for any other sportsman, to suggest it isnít is simple ignorantIt isnít merely that movement suddenly becomes sluggish or that mobility is compromised to the point of making playing at a high level unsustainable. Rather that some small injuries tend to endure or that large new ones can emerge impinge or end an athletes career. There is some slowing down, though this is negligable-at least until a player reaches his 30's.But even more significantly psychology plays a huge part in the later careers of players-especially those sports where nerve is involved-like tennis. Every retired tennis player iíve ever heard who commented on the subject reports that nerves increase with age, not the converse. Even Nadal recently commented on how nervous he was going into the French open final. Most grandslame winners win their first slam before the age of 25, those who donít are in a minority, and the optimum age for winning slams in men is between 20-26.Of course players win slams older than this, but if you check out the stats over the last 20 years, once you hit 30 that likelihood diminishes drastically in statistical terms.

The concept of the GOAT will inexorably be determined by simply counting up the number of slams a player has won. There are no other satisfactory criteria which could possibly establish such an idea, which is why Federer is considered the greatest. Some may doubt this, but overwhelmingly amongst players, commentators, and fans of the game his is the best and for one good reason-heís won more slams than any other guy.The logical upshot of not using a slam count as decisive is that i can put forward any player i think of regardless of the number of slams heís won and claim heís the GOAT by virtue of any criteria i care to think of-weeks at no1, head to heads, overall ATP titles, the era he played in, the surfaces he won on ect.History almost unanimously judges slams as the criteria by which we judge the greatest, and all your post Wimbledon sobbing and angst will not change that one jot.

things which he din't have in 2004,

1. experience of being in all kinds of situations 2. strong backhand3. strong serve4. experience of fighting someone like nadal 5. confidence and freedom of nothing else to prove

all those things he has today.......look it's absolute bulls**t to say that he is 30 and that's why he is supposed to be weak........it doesn't work like that........a player transforms over a period of time, he loses some and gains some over a period of time........he never has everything at one point and nothing at a later point.......

you are just being utterly biased and selective when you just focus on that slight drop in movement leaving aside all those things mentioned above........

nadal started winning slams at 19 and no nadal fan ever fixed a time frame till 2008 and called post 2008 his non-prime period.......it's a business of cowards who can't deal with real rivals........

nadal played invincible tennis in 2008, a level which could not be touched on any surface and he rolled over federer, djokovic, murray on all kinds of surfaces like a bulldozer and finally stopped himself in us open 2008 having won 3 hardcourt titles in 3 straight weeks before the slam........

no nadal fan framed that little 2008 period as his peak and called other years as prime or non prime garbage even thought it is quite clear that he never touched that level before or after that year........

Nobody has said he is supposed to be weak, try reading the post you are responding to and engage with it rather than confining yourself to rather embarrassing and neurotic rants about the abilities of Nadal. Given what you've written on this thread you're clearly approaching a stage where reasoned argument is futile and some sort of sedation and professional psychological help is the only option. The argument that i made is that there is a diminishing of a players ability, this is common sense, but this is born out statistically too. Male tennis players typically do better in their mid twenties and citing Agassi as a player who won slams in his thirties doesn't negate the plausibility of the statistical fact. So it's perfectly reasonalbe to assume Federer's abilities are not quite what they were dispite him just having won a slam-he is less of a player than he was, but not so much less of a player that he poses no threat to the top players. The exact trajectory of a players ability isn't measured by a line on a graph, but incrementally-a longterm downward trend can include upward and downward spikes which do not negate the long-term situation and are statistically less permanent.

Logged

I am a lighthouse worn by the weather and the wavesAnd though I'm empty I still warn the sailors on their way

Good to see Federer winning a grandslam. I am not a fan of his, but he has been in the mix since two and a half years....almost there but not winning it, so its good. 17 is a huge number, never thought that anyone could go beyond 14. Remarkable achievement.

As far as Rafa is concerned, he was not focussed enough. I hope he comes back with more passion for the olympics.

Murray on the other hand from what I saw was that he was simply beaten by a better player. Murray is no Rafa. Simple as that.

Nole will be back. the rest don't need mention, they disappoint me time and again, I wonder whom I can even pick to follow once this current crop of top players go away.

FEDFANFOREVER - I was delighted to see Federer win Wimbledon & with it, to gain confidence for his remaining career. The window of opportunity for him to win slams is getting narrower as we speak, and it is a credit to him that he was able to do it. What a phenomenal achievement.

You may be right in saying that the slam count is important in the scheme of things, but as a tennis fan, I don't agree that it is all that matters. Not to me anyway. How the game is played matters enormously. The quiet determination & mastery shown by Djokovic in the last 18 months is outstanding. Nadals passion, power and ability to adapt are mind boggling.

Federer is an artist in my view. I love his game, and how he plays it. I have seen him live umpteen times over the years as well as Nadal & Djokovic & the other top players ( At Roland Garros & Wimbledon, various European ATP tournaments & the WTF in London) I am just blown away with how he plays the game.

And during Wimbledon 2012, the great Rod Laver was interviewed and asked who he liked to watch. He said Federer & explained why. So many aficiendos and commentators, including past great players say similar things. It would be an enormous disservice to Federer if he is remembered primarily for his records. I hope he is remembered more for his sublime tennis.

Good to see Federer winning a grandslam. I am not a fan of his, but he has been in the mix since two and a half years....almost there but not winning it, so its good. 17 is a huge number, never thought that anyone could go beyond 14. Remarkable achievement.

As far as Rafa is concerned, he was not focussed enough. I hope he comes back with more passion for the olympics.

Murray on the other hand from what I saw was that he was simply beaten by a better player. Murray is no Rafa. Simple as that.

Nole will be back. the rest don't need mention, they disappoint me time and again, I wonder whom I can even pick to follow once this current crop of top players go away.

Nice comment & well said re: Nadal & Djokovic - they'll both be back to resume their position as the top two players in the world. I would add also that Murray continues to improve and I'm hopeful he'll win a slam & remain in the mix at the top. It will be interesting to see who takes the number one next - Federer won't keep it for long.

In relation to your comment about "who" in relation to the others, I concur. I had wanted Del Potro to start playing more consistently, but it hasn't happened. It seems that the top 4 are left to mix it up between themselves with Nadal & Djokovic set to continue to dominate.

I can be even more specific and take it from 2008 only but thatís not necessary.

But you can see that even though Murray has yet to beat Federer in a GS, he has always led the H2H until only yesterday. And if he didnít have this unique situation going on with the pressure then I believe Murray would have led Federer 2-1 in GS. Fortunately for Nadal, there was no 76 years waiting on him because if it did, then I am now sure how he would have reacted to all this, because I donít think he likes the pressure all that much either. This shouldnít be a new flash to you but such pressure in tennis can do you a lot of damages. Mind you, Murray was the 2nd only player to lead the H2H vs Federer so basically there are a lot of grey areas in Federerís achievements. I also fail to see what Federerís supposedly beautiful game has anything to do with the competitive nature of this sport. This does not belong in this argument at all.

Now, Iíve never blamed the roof to be the sole cause for Andyís loss but it made a difference. Murray himself is a good indoor player but that wasnít the problem. The problem was, he couldnít adjust the change and got distracted which initiated his loss of concentration. This was his first time Wimbledon final (even Nadal had to play Federer twice at Wimbledon before he could claim a win over him) and the expectations went through the roof just before the final, so he needed to stay focused and single minded, so the change early in the 3rd set definitely played a significant part on Murrayís game. Wasnít Federerís fault but did get lucky as a result given the experience he already had playing in CC finals a number of times. When he beat Sampras in their first time meeting on grass back in 2001, despite being winning that match, he didnít win the tournament, but playing in one of the earlier rounds at Wimbledon against Pete definitely opened up the door for him to beat him. Had he met with Sampras in the final instead, I am sure Sampras would have seen a straight set victory over Federer.

For me It is hard to believe that some grown up people can produce so much nonsense.

Roof, draw, Nadal. Bla bla bla. Not one comes with reasonable arguments or simply facts.I think some people need to see the bigger picture. Since the USO11, Federer has been racking up titles & points, beating the top players, and playing very high level tennis. Completing this run of form with a Wimbledon victory really fits.

So its not the stupid roof, the cake walk draw, or Rafa losing to multiple GS champion Rosol; it is playing high level tennis consistenly and continuously over an extended period of time imo.

Doing so with the likes of Djokovic 2.0, Nadal, and Murray also in competition is just plain awsome. Hence, for me this period USO11-WB12 (and continuing) marks on the of most impressive chapters of Federer's carreer.

Baz hits a homer! Page after page of utter fantard crap. Barely any 'tennis talk' whatsoever. Glad I missed it all and played tennis yesterday with my family.

Oh, I should definitely add that after Nadal got ousted in the 2nd round, it certainly opened up the door for Murray and Andy did get slightly lucky there and thatís despite his already tough draw. Raonic was another concern for us but Querrey took care of him. As an Andy fan, I have no problems saying that Andy too got slightly lucky, but in the final itself, the luck was clearly not his side. I guess it just wasnít meant to be but he did play like a champion for the first two sets and had he won the 2nd, I suppose we would have experienced a different day today.

Anyway, that's about it. It's just right after Wimbledon so easy to discuss these matters. There's no point being on a forum if you can't talk about related matters and it doesn't always have to be the technical sides, because tennis is not always about that.

You know Fed fans have had to put up with a lot. For the past 2 years, we've read from some of the Nadal and Djokovic fans that Roger would NEVER get back to #1 again. That Roger would NEVER win another slam. That you could stick a fork in him...that he's 'done'...etc, etc., etc. We read this day and night on all tennis forms. We had to sit through Rafa and Novak battles. We had to sit through people saying because of Novak and Rafa's dominance, this is the best 'era' for tennis and that Roger only won his slams because he had no competition. I can go back and pull post from members here saying they can "guarantee you that Roger would NEVER win another slam"...and, that he was basically 'dreaming' of getting back to #1 so Pete's records was safe.

So what does he do? He didn't play to your game plan. He wins another slam in which all the top players entered. He actually had to beat the #1 and #3 YOUNGER players. And on top of that...he actually took back the #1 ranking....a ranking in which there are players like Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray! And instead of those people who doubted him just take their 'lumps' and say "well, I was wrong and Congratulations Roger"...they take all their time writing nonsense and trying to 'degrade' what he's done in order to make themselves look better.

The bottom line is: ROGER FEDERER IS THE 2012 WIMBLEDON CHAMPION. And... AS OF TODAY, 7/9/2012...ROGER FEDERER IS THE #1 RANKED PLAYER IN THE WORLD.

Sure, he may not finish the year as #1, but we Federer fans are so glad that he broke Pete's record - the record most of you thought was safer than any other record out there!

So I really wish you guys would stop trying to analyze why you think Roger won and didn't deserve to win it - and just congratulate him on his winning. Afterall, you can't take it away from him!

You know Fed fans have had to put up with a lot. For the past 2 years, we've read from some of the Nadal and Djokovic fans that Roger would NEVER get back to #1 again. That Roger would NEVER win another slam. That you could stick a fork in him...that he's 'done'...etc, etc., etc. We read this day and night on all tennis forms. We had to sit through Rafa and Novak battles. We had to sit through people saying because of Novak and Rafa's dominance, this is the best 'era' for tennis and that Roger only won his slams because he had no competition. I can go back and pull post from members here saying they can "guarantee you that Roger would NEVER win another slam"...and, that he was basically 'dreaming' of getting back to #1 so Pete's records was safe.

So what does he do? He didn't play to your game plan. He wins another slam in which all the top players entered. He actually had to beat the #1 and #3 YOUNGER players. And on top of that...he actually took back the #1 ranking....a ranking in which there are players like Nadal, Djokovic, and Murray! And instead of those people who doubted him just take their 'lumps' and say "well, I was wrong and Congratulations Roger"...they take all their time writing nonsense and trying to 'degrade' what he's done in order to make themselves look better.

The bottom line is: ROGER FEDERER IS THE 2012 WIMBLEDON CHAMPION. And... AS OF TODAY, 7/9/2012...ROGER FEDERER IS THE #1 RANKED PLAYER IN THE WORLD.

Sure, he may not finish the year as #1, but we Federer fans are so glad that he broke Pete's record - the record most of you thought was safer than any other record out there!

So I really wish you guys would stop trying to analyze why you think Roger won and didn't deserve to win it - and just congratulate him on his winning. Afterall, you can't take it away from him!

feel bad for Kohly but I really want Tommy to go deep at W. On the other hand, I really hope we can see Djokovic vs. Federer in semis . it would be so cool.

djoko and fed both look very beatable, alex.......grass is not djokovic's favourite surface and he will be challenged by a lot of players........last year he was untouchable and just carried that early season momentum into wimbledon.......

i think this tournament is going to be a show of three men - nadal, del potro and berdych.......

the way things are at this moment Djokovic will take Wimbledon and not "break a sweat" in process Fed is just to old and in other half of draw non of "mental midgets" can not even challenge him in finalbtw[/size]"mental midgets" aka Tsonga & Murray